Liberal NDP Merger Possibility?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

And they're completely out to lunch.

Plus, Canadians are about 10x smarter than Europeans.

Why don't we just make you PM!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why don't we just make you PM!

I have no problem with a environmentally friendly platform based around common sense, but the Greens are out to lunch.

Opposition to nuclear power and pacifist ideals are enough for me to tell them to stick it.

[FanIn80]

Personally, aside from their ridiculous platform, I think that whole vote-fixing thing is what did them in.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

B) Proclaim that everything is fine and people should just relax when the financial system and the major figureheads around the globe stare into the abyss, quite literally.

From a global point of view, yes the financial system is in rough shape. This has been demonstrated numerous times with the propping up of banks, the Greece turmoil, etc.

From a Canadian point of view, our banks ARE fine. They are stable and on this basis people should relax and not panic near as much as people in other parts of the world. We may be dragged down with the rest of them, being more and more a global economy, but it is no reason for foolhardy panic in the meantime.

[FlamesAddiction]

Is it possible for parties to talk merger without the major leaders even being involved? They are denying it, so either they weren't invited to the party, or it probably isn't going to happen.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I have said many, many, many, many times....Gilles Duceppe is the best party leader in Canada, followed very closely by Jack Layton. They have and do leave guys like Ignatieff, Harper, May (snicker), Dion, Martin in the dust.

The only reason these guys haven't become Prime Minister......the parties that they lead don't happen to represent the average Canadian. I sincerely believe that if one led the Liberals and one led the Conservatives, we'd have a MUCH more productive, balanced and trustworthy Parliament.

I agree as much as I disagree.

For Duceppe and Layton its an easier task to be a party leader when your running a party with no chance or no interest in winning an election.

You can take the popular or position of least conflict on every single issue. for example, Layton can talk about massive social programs without ever having to answer to the budget effects. Ducceppe has to manage his party from the view of a minority of Canadians.

I doubt that either of those two would actually be effective if they had to balance their platform and run as anything but the friendly objection of parliment.

[Phaneuf3]

Here's a brilliant idea: Why don't we just merge them all together and have a one party system? The threat of a shaky minority government that could be toppled triggering another election becomes substantially less.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

From a global point of view, yes the financial system is in rough shape. This has been demonstrated numerous times with the propping up of banks, the Greece turmoil, etc.

From a Canadian point of view, our banks ARE fine. They are stable and on this basis people should relax and not panic near as much as people in other parts of the world. We may be dragged down with the rest of them, being more and more a global economy, but it is no reason for foolhardy panic in the meantime.

Right, and I don't disagree with that either. I'm not a doomsday theorist or anything like that. That being said for an economist (which Harper is) to come out and say that the economy in Canada is fine and we won't be running a deficit because they are addictive while the global financial system crumbles around us is just plain mismanagement. My clients wouldn't allow me to get away with missing things like Lehman Bros. going under as a major issue and I would suggest that the standard for me is not as high as a sitting Prime Minister!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, and I don't disagree with that either. I'm not a doomsday theorist or anything like that. That being said for an economist (which Harper is) to come out and say that the economy in Canada is fine and we won't be running a deficit because they are addictive while the global financial system crumbles around us is just plain mismanagement. My clients wouldn't allow me to get away with missing things like Lehman Bros. going under as a major issue and I would suggest that the standard for me is not as high as a sitting Prime Minister!

Well you're not allowed to play politics, Harper is. Which is exactly what he is doing.

More or less he's reaping the benefits of good regulation from years past and using it to his political advantage.

I don't have a problem with that at all. I think Canada should be proud as a whole for the stability we've shown in this recession.

[RedHot25]

But that's not Slava's point....

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

But that's not Slava's point....

But it is a good one none the less. Canada has looked great compared to the rest of the world in this economic down turn. That has helped Harper to keep the govenment.

Harper is doing things now that benefits Canadians today because if he doesn't there will be an election called and he will be out. Harper is spending less than any of the other parties would have. No party was promising balanced budgets during this world wide recession. The other parties almost joined to overthrow the Conservatives on the grounds that Harper wasn't doing enough.

If inflation starts to rise Harper will raise interest rates to combat that. I just don't see the dramatic rises you do. Is there another Western country you can point to who have done a better job managing its interest rates during this downturn?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But it is a good one none the less. Canada has looked great compared to the rest of the world in this economic down turn. That has helped Harper to keep the govenment.

Harper is doing things now that benefits Canadians today because if he doesn't there will be an election called and he will be out. Harper is spending less than any of the other parties would have. No party was promising balanced budgets during this world wide recession. The other parties almost joined to overthrow the Conservatives on the grounds that Harper wasn't doing enough.

If inflation starts to rise Harper will raise interest rates to combat that. I just don't see the dramatic rises you do. Is there another Western country you can point to who have done a better job managing its interest rates during this downturn?

Originally Posted by RedHot25

But that's not Slava's point....

....

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But it is a good one none the less. Canada has looked great compared to the rest of the world in this economic down turn. That has helped Harper to keep the govenment.

Harper is doing things now that benefits Canadians today because if he doesn't there will be an election called and he will be out. Harper is spending less than any of the other parties would have. No party was promising balanced budgets during this world wide recession. The other parties almost joined to overthrow the Conservatives on the grounds that Harper wasn't doing enough.

If inflation starts to rise Harper will raise interest rates to combat that. I just don't see the dramatic rises you do. Is there another Western country you can point to who have done a better job managing its interest rates during this downturn?

Sure they were. Harper stated clearly that they wouldn't run a deficit because they are addictive.

And as far as a western govenrment that has managed its rates better I point to Australia.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

....

But none the less it is a good one. Harper is not merely a funds manager who can make decisions without regard to short term political realities.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But none the less it is a good one.

So, you're trying to deflect the topic onto something else so that you don't have to address his point?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

That being said for an economist (which Harper is) to come out and say that the economy in Canada is fine and we won't be running a deficit because they are addictive while the global financial system crumbles around us is just plain mismanagement.

I'd be willing to bet that the extent of chaos elsewhere in the world was very much misunderstood and underestimated. With the focus mostly on the strong state of Canadian business, and rightfully so, I think he was being mostly honest in believing that a deficit would not be needed. Of course, that has since turned out to not be the case, both due to the increased globalization impact on Canadian business and the intense weakness that exists globally. I do like that the plan adapted and did not immediately jump to deficits, although the strength and reliability of his advisors should certainly be questioned.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure they were. Harper stated clearly that they wouldn't run a deficit because they are addictive.

And as far as a western govenrment that has managed its rates better I point to Australia.

I don't recall Harper promising a balanced budget but, even if he did the threat of the other three parties joining together against him forced Harper into deficit spending. All the other parties complained at the time he was doing too little. They would have spent more.

I'm not suggesting Harper made all the right economic decisions but rather all his economic decisions by necessity are political decisions as well. That changes what you can do and what you have to do.

I'm glad to hear Australia didn't have to resort to lowering their interest rates. How did they do it? Were they less impacted by the recession somehow?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

So, you're trying to deflect the topic onto something else so that you don't have to address his point?

What?? All I'm saying is that you can't fairly evaluate Harper's economic decisions without acknowledging the political realities and pressure he was under. Sure he could have maintained the interest rates where they were and tabled a balanced budget but, he would have been out of a job in short order. Not only that but the guy who replaced him would have spent more and lowered interest rates just as much.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree as much as I disagree.

For Duceppe and Layton its an easier task to be a party leader when your running a party with no chance or no interest in winning an election.

That's certainly a valid observation (as supported by the rest of your post).

My point goes a little more towards credibility though. In all these years, I've never doubted Duceppe's goal to tear Canada in half, or Layton's commitment to a hippy, utopian paradise). I've never questioned whether there's alternative motives in play, or if they're lining their pockets with my cash, etc, etc. They don't bounce around on issues (even when unpopular) and seem to be very consistent in their approach to representation.

They both know (without a doubt) that they have ZERO chance of ever forming government, yet they continue to press on. Oddly enough, I think that this willingness to lose (because of a commitment to their ideals) shows them to be better leaders.....I sincerely believe that they're in it for what they believe in, not for the necessarily for the glory of being PM.

My knock on them is WHAT they're representing, but I'm continually impressed by the way they go about representing it. Crap, if one of them magically turned into a Federalist that is (truly) socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they'd be virtually unbeatable.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure they were. Harper stated clearly that they wouldn't run a deficit because they are addictive.

And if he had a majority government, he probably wouldn't have. Certainly not to the tune of $40-$50 Billion. The $10 Billion to GM would not have happened, for sure.

There's a lot to criticize him for (and you should), but being forced by the majority of government into spending money isn't the strongest argument (imo). I'm not sure why people insist hanging their "Anti-Harper" hat on the deficit spending issue?

There are plenty of issues that were made by choice - not things that he was forced to do. If people want to criticize Harper, why not talk to points that actually prove the point? A sample of them would be.....

Crime legislation that is about punishment, not rehabilitation.
Staunch support of Israel, no matter what.
Proroguing Parliament to kill a coalition.
Proroguing Parliament to re-align their policies (and not actually changing anything).
Withholding the Afghan Detainee Documents (Apparently, just to be a dick).
The media leash put on party members.